‘I cannot imagine a need for the instruction unless there was an early disagreement in that room on the evidence and the standards,’ he said.
Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor who was in the courtroom during Wednesday’s proceedings in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York, said that he sees signs of “early disagreement” among the jury after jurors asked to rehear the judge’s instructions.
Jurors in the case deliberated on May 29 after being given instructions by Judge Juan Merchan, which included telling them that they don’t need to be in agreement on the “unlawful means” that underpin the alleged underlying crime of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election, which prosecutors are relying on to elevate a misdemeanor business records falsification charge to the rank of a felony.
The underlying crime that President Trump is being accused of intending to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152, which provides that “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Prosecutors have alleged that President Trump fraudulently misclassified non-disclosure payments to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford as part of an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election in which he was a candidate.
President Trump maintains his innocence and has alleged that the trial is a politically-motivated bid to undermine his 2024 presidential run.
As the jury deliberated, the jurors sent a series of notes to the judge, including one that requested testimony transcripts and another, filed at 3:51 p.m., asking to re-hear Judge Merchan’s instructions.
Mr. Turley, who has been commenting on the day’s proceedings from his vantage position in the courtroom, took to X to express the view that the request to rehear the instructions is a possible sign of disagreement among jurors.
“The request for instructions is particularly interesting,” Mr. Turley wrote in a post. “I cannot imagine a need for the instruction unless there was an early disagreement in that room on the evidence and the standards.”
The request for instructions is particularly interesting. I cannot imagine a need for the instruction unless there was an early disagreement in that room on the evidence and the standards. That could indicate at least one juror who is not convinced by either Steinglass or Blanche…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 29, 2024
